Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

Nine phase 3 RCT cohorts from 8 eligible studies were identified, analyzing data from 6,315 patients. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 6,315 Evidence: high

Parietal cortex RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) data were generated from individuals with and without Alzheimer disease (AD; n control = 13; n AD = 83) from the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight ADRC). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for clinical trials of anti-Aβ immunotherapy published on or before January 12, 2022. 4 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 9,429 Evidence: high

Etiology of White Matter Hyperintensities in Autosomal Dominant and Sporadic Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2023-12-01

Data from 3960 MRI sessions among 1141 participants were included: 252 pathogenic variant carriers from DIAN (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [11.2] years; 137 [54%] female), 571 older adults from ADNI (mean [SD] age, 72.8 [7.3] years; 274 [48%] female), and 318 older adults from HABS (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.6] years; 194 [61%] female). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,141 Evidence: moderate

In the UGOT cohort, the optimal cutoff improved diagnostic accuracy compared with the standard single cutoff, particularly in CKD and anemia (CKD: from 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72; to 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; anemia: from 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.84; to 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90), with consistent findings in the Roche cohort. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 2,571 Evidence: moderate

Disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are likely to be most beneficial when initiated in the presymptomatic phase. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 567 Evidence: moderate

A summary measure of γ-secretase activity (γ-secretase composite [GSC]) was calculated for each variant and compared with clinical history-derived AAO using correlation analyses. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 190 Evidence: moderate

Three survey rounds included 49 to 54 participants that agreed on VasCog-2 diagnostic criteria for preclinical, mild, and major dementia levels of vascular cognitive impairment (under the overarching term VCID). 5 key findings →

Participants: 49 Evidence: low

Of the total of 1795 subjects randomized in Clarity AD, 294 subjects were in the Asian region (Japan:152; Korea:129; Singapore:13). 5 key findings →

Design: clinical trial Participants: 294 Evidence: high

Parietal and occipital lobar CMBs counts were higher in PiB(+) ADCI with moderate WMH than PiB(+) ADCI with minimal WMH, whereas PiB(-) patients with SVCI (ie, "pure" SVCI) showed both lobar and deep CMBs. 3 key findings →

Participants: 226 Evidence: moderate

Of the total, 908 (37.0%) participants had cSVD on MRI reading at baseline. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,454 Evidence: moderate

It remains unknown whether the associations between protective lifestyles and sporadic dementia risk reported in observational studies also affect age at symptom onset (AAO) in autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) with predominant genetic influences. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 103 Evidence: moderate

Most patients with svMCI do not exhibit substantial amyloid burden, and CVD does not increase β-amyloid burden as measured by amyloid imaging. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 95 Evidence: low

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), launched in 2004, has worked to accelerate drug development by validating imaging and blood/cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease clinical treatment trials. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Health Insurance Database in South Korea. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Although pathogenic variants in PSEN1 leading to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) are highly penetrant, substantial interindividual variability in the rates of cognitive decline and biomarker change are observed in ADAD. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

15 years of longitudinal genetic, clinical, cognitive, imaging, and biochemical measures in DIAN

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. npj Dementia 2026-02-16

The Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Observational Study (DIAN Obs) is a longitudinal, global cohort study investigating brain aging and autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease (ADAD), a rare monogenic form of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), a single-nucleotide polymorphism in the gene encoding brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF Val66Met ) is associated with worse impact of primary AD pathology (beta-amyloid, Aβ) on neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, rendering BDNF Val66Met an important modulating factor of cognitive impairment in AD. 5 key findings →

Participants: 149 Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 27,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed